And so yours truly is currently on call, but since there's a lull, I would like to pen down some thoughts regarding in an issue that is frankly, pretty disturbing to me.
Just yesterday our esteemed local newspaper published an article about a woman winning her right to die. In this woman's case, it was the right for her caregivers to refuse her sustenence in order to end her life. There have been several such articles in the past few months, and I can't help but notice that they take up quite a bit of space in my newspaper. A while back a senior, non medical person in the healthcare sector raised the issue of euthanasia, and his stance appeared to be in support of having the right to die.
To me, a young 'un in the medical field, this whole issue is upsetting. One could go into a long discourse about the meaning of life and the right to die, but essentially they boil down to one thing - should a doctor, with all his skills and knowledge and experience, help a person die? Are we doing justice to all the work of the ones who came before us by using our abilities to kill someone?
I know my stance in this debate, although I know there will be no end to it. Which is why I wonder about the future of the practice of medicine. Will I end my career in a place completely different from when I started?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hello! Was so glad to see a new rss feed in my mail heh...
Anyway..I just have a few questions :)
Isn't there a difference between actively "using your abilities to kill someone" and simply allowing your patient to refuse treatment/sustenance (as I presume was the situation in this case)? Aren't 'mercy killing' and 'right to die' pretty different?
The doctor wouldn't be actively using his knowledge and training to kill someone if his medical advice is simply being refused by the patient, right?
Considering that the world changes very fast these days, 5 years in medical school would mean that the current place is already different from when you entered medical school and even more different from when you harbored thoughts of becoming a doctor.
It's not a matter of "if" but when and where.
The reality of the situation is: we live in a world where political agendas often trump individual conscience, even when polls indicate a majority who oppose ethically / morally reprehensible (IMHO) acts such as euthanasia.
Whatever the final outcome, I'm resigned to the inevitability of my vote meaning zilch once the powers that be make up their minds to legalize assisted suicide, whichever form it may take.
However, I'm confident that doctors will be allowed to make their own choices and opt out if necessary.
Who knows, it may turn out that no doctor in Singapore will agree to hasten his patient's death.
Speak for yourself! I'll be the first one to sign up as a 'euthanatist' and give up my license if the pay is good enough. I'll never have to worry about killing my patients again. Ever.
Rhea: you're right, i was just trying to point out the direction in which we seem to heading - that is, legalising assisted suicide.
Anon, spacefan, angry doc: it'll be a very very sad day when my MCR no means i'm an authorised murderer. =(
I think one of the biggest obstacles to legalisation of euthanasia is the fixed idea that doctors must be involved directly.
Why does it have to be a doctor who does the killing? There is no good reason, really.
Doctors are probably required to certify someone who wants euthanasia as "terminal", but the actual administration of poison does not have to be done by a doctor. In fact, to prevent a conflict of interest, we may even legislate against doctors performing euthanasia, and euthanatists practising as doctors. Doctors can still choose whether or not they want to object to certifying someone as terminal (much as doctors can not take part in living wills) - leave the killing to people who enjoy it... like me!
It's no more murder than having sex with someone who consents is rape.
I agree that refusing someone medical treatment/ food is as good as killing him, I don't believe the simple act of deliberately letting something else kill him means you didn't make the decision for him to die.
But I must question why the above doctors believe that life has such intrinsic value, that it is impossible for life to be so unbearable that it is not worth living. Why is life always worth saving?
While it is true that in many circumstances people are thankful that they have not committed suicide, I do believe that it is possible for someone to be in such dire straits and with no hope of getting out that it is possible life may be more painful than joyful to live. In which case (unless you have religious beliefs) I don't see the point of keeping the person alive.
To me the only question is whether we can accurately distinguish between the two conditions.
Post a Comment